Thread: What Politcal Ideology Are you?-Intelligent Debate time!

Originally Posted by Quantiq

I ask because I have a friend who believes that there is a correlation between economic status and political ideology. I don't know many people who are really conservative so I thought I would ask. Sorry if it was a bit personal by the way.

Well, I'm not conservative. I'm actually quite far left. But nah, I don't mind personal questions.

Originally Posted by Quantiq

I ask because I have a friend who believes that there is a correlation between economic status and political ideology. I don't know many people who are really conservative so I thought I would ask. Sorry if it was a bit personal by the way.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Well, I'm not conservative. I'm actually quite far left. But nah, I don't mind personal questions.

I'm very familiar with the American religious right, as I've been around them all my life. Maybe I can answer some questions about them, if you have faith in my ability to treat a view quite contrary to my own with fairness and honesty.

I'm not a far-right conservative I'm a nationalist, economically I lean more to the left but I'm far from a socialist. Also I'm not a racist, well racism is basically a meaningless word anyway but I do have a few non-white friends so I suppose that would make me a non-racist in most peoples books.

Just for the record Race =/= skin colour, skin colour is the colour of ones skin, race is about common descent. In studies this is someitmes reffered to as a 'population'.

If you you bring in people from africa then you shouldnt be suprised when they end up murdering/stealing/raping in levels seen in their country of origin. And that's not even the end reason, i'm sure most africans wouldn't want millions of white migrating to their countries, and if they did oppose this mass white mgiration I bet all the liberals would be behind them too, yet they oppose whites who want the same thing.

people who can afford to immigrate from Africa to the uk are not gonna be the type of people that do that. They will proably be the type of people trying to escape that environment. I don't think any country has a right to tell other people there not allowed in. It makes people feel superior to others and causes lots of problems. Nationalism is dangerous because on an internal level it causes violence between "natives" and "foreigners" (even though everyone is a foreigner because no one has originated in the uk). On an external level it causes violence between the state and foreign countries. Take Germany for an example. World war 1 and 2 was partly because of extreme german nationalism. Luckily the uk isn't even close to that, but if everyone thought the way you do there, it could be.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

If you you bring in people from africa then you shouldnt be suprised when they end up murdering/stealing/raping in levels seen in their country of origin. And that's not even the end reason, i'm sure most africans wouldn't want millions of white migrating to their countries, and if they did oppose this mass white mgiration I bet all the liberals would be behind them too, yet they oppose whites who want the same thing.

People still think like this? I thought it was 2011, not 1911.

It seems the people who wish to migrate are those who want (and have the ability) to escape from the hardships they were facing at home. We don't "bring" people here, they come here of their own will and ability.

Atras: I'm not sure exactly the method people use to get here, african migrants to italy at least often just use a basic raft made of a few planks of wood and some nails. For the others, a £500 plane ticket isnt that much in the scheme of things, they may well have stolen that money. And also some people just get into shipping containers with some food and get here that way. In the 1960's some were actually brought here for free as a source of cheap factory labour. Many did (and still do to a large extent) come for the benefits available.

Also if everyone thought like I did, then there would never be a war again. Infact people who dont belive in nationalism cause the wars, no nationalist would ever interfere in another nation therefore there would be world peace.

Blueline: That is perhaps the worst agrument against any viewpoint, not just mine, let's say in twenty years times Nationalism becomes the norm, people then would say to you "People still think like this? It's 2031 not 2011" the year has nothing to do with it.

What he means is that we realize that immigrants don't just come to countries and rape and murder and steal jobs. That's just not the case but throughout history that's what immigrants have always been accused of. It's not a new thing to be anti-immigrant, but it is something that we are realizing now is wrong. And the only two world wars were started partly because of an extremely nationalistic Germany, nationalism does not equal peace in any way.

I dont think anyone belives they come here for the sole purpose of murdering/raping, but if thousands of people are coming from societies where this is a norm on a daily basis, and is much more widespread, then why wouldn't the rate of so many crimes rise substantially?

I can sympathise with liberals, most nationalists used to be liberal so i've heard and probably said to others most of these arguments. you say "we are now realising this is wrong" when you mean realising what this basically means more people are falling for liberal propaganda, but infact Nationalism is at its most widespread across europe since the 1970's and is just continuing to get bigger.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I dont think anyone belives they come here for the sole purpose of murdering/raping, but if thousands of people are coming from societies where this is a norm on a daily basis, and is much more widespread, then why wouldn't the rate of so many crimes rise substantially?

I can sympathise with liberals, most nationalists used to be liberal so i've heard and probably said to others most of these arguments. you say "we are now realising this is wrong" when you mean realising what this basically means more people are falling for liberal propaganda, but infact Nationalism is at its most widespread across europe since the 1970's and is just continuing to get bigger.

The people who are murdering and raping aren't the ones who are coming to europe. It is the ones who hate it so much there that they have to leave. They either are poor and just can't stand living in that type of environment, or more likely, are able to afford to move there. You say "oh yeah a plane ticket just costs $500). Well first of all, that's alot of money for the average person in say Uganda. But even if they could afford it, its not the transportation that costs a lot, its the standard of living. It costs alot more to live in the UK then it does in Uganda. The only people that would be moving there is people who can afford it or people who desperatlely want to escape the harsh conditions of the area they live. They're not bringing murder and rape with them, they're trying to escape it. And yeah I'm sure some criminals do immigrate to Europe. But not enough to turn Europe into a criminal society. The concept of the state is what causes so much war, however the concept of the state isn't going to be abolished anytime soon. That's fine. What's not fine is thinking that the country is not open to anyone else. This type of thinking spreads prejudice among people and not only makes them hate immigrants, but hate anyone who is not from their own country. It gives rise to a feeling of superiority and creates very dangerous problems. In america there used to be huge, destructive riots all the time because of xenophobia. Countries have gone to war countless times because of it. Xenophobia causes hate both internally and externally and leads to a very divided and separated world. As we venture forward into the future, we should start becoming more together as the people of the world, not more divided. We're all the same people, it doesn't matter our color of our skin or our place of birth. We are all human beings and we all live in the same world and we have to learn to co-operate with eachother and co-exist. Anti-immigration is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Nationalism to an extent is good, but when you are so nationalistic that those fake, imaginary lines that separate your country from the one next to you becomes so real in your mind, then its dangerous. And remember, you are an immigrant. Unless you live in Africa, you can't say for sure that you originated in your country. At one time your ancestors immigrated to the place you live, so to say, "oh well It's ok that I immigrated here but your not allowed to" is completely hypocritical. It doesn't matter if your ancestors immigrated here 1000 years ago or 10 years ago, they still immigrated here. Everyone has a right to live in any country they want to, and anti-immigration is taking away that right and freedom. A common argument is "oh the immigrants are taking our jobs". Most immigrants do the dirty jobs that no one wants to do. And even if they are taking higher paying jobs, you can't say that the immigrants are taking your jobs. It would be no different if there was no immigration but the birth rate rose. Everyone is entitled to jobs and you should encourage immigration from terrible places, because it gives people a better opportunity to succeed that you've always taken for granted. Its not their fault where they were born, so they shouldn't be condemned to spend their life in a god-forsaken country just because they weren't lucky enough to be born somewhere else. In my opinion, anti-immigration is selfishness, and pro-immigration is selflessness.

EDIT: over here in california, one of the biggest issues is mexican immigration. Everyone is accusing them of stealing our jobs and causing drug wars to leak over into california. Most of the Mexicans who come to California are just innocent Mexicans who are trying to escape the poor conditions in Mexico. They aren't criminals. And they don't steal our jobs. they go and work in places like McDonalds or in some strawberry fields. They do the work no one wants to do, they don't steal our jobs. And yes there is some problems with druglords, but the drug lords come over illegally anways. Most of the criminals don't come over legally. And then again, most of the people who come over illegally aren't criminals anyways. It's completely false to think that immigrants cause lots of problems, they don't.

"what causes so much war, however the concept of the state isn't going to be abolished anytime soon. That's fine. What's not fine is thinking that the country is not open to anyone else"

" Everyone has a right to live in any country they want to, and anti-immigration is taking away that right and freedom"

So there would be no problem if 6.7 billion people migrated to the Island of Malta then?

Luckily this way of thinking is extremly rare, as it is basically suicidal. The UK and Netherlands in particular are very overcrowded,neither have enough land are to feed their own population and water resources in Southern england are very stretched. Add to this the chronic housing shortage in the UK at least. What on earth is wrong being being anti-immigration? The majority of Long term First generation and Second generation immigrants are opposed to immigration, so being anti-immigration does not equal being a 'racist'.

The migration that took place in 40,000 BC was a case of moving 0.25 miles to the next free space of land to grow crops, not moving 6,000 miles into a society completly alien to the other.

Wow, using the example of 6.7 billion people migrating is pointles because we both know that No country recieves immigration that is even close to that number, considering that that number is the population of the freaking world!

im using it to test the waters really, The UK is already overcrowded (albeit not 100,000 per square mile) and yet you are opposed to those oppsed to immigration. Where do you draw the line. Lets say the UK population grew to 300,000,000. Would it be ok to oppose immigration then? where is the line.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

im using it to test the waters really, The UK is already overcrowded (albeit not 100,000 per square mile) and yet you are opposed to those oppsed to immigration. Where do you draw the line. Lets say the UK population grew to 300,000,000. Would it be ok to oppose immigration then? where is the line.

I'm not opposed to immigration in a reasonable amount in the US. Our population density is 83/sq. mile. the UK is 660. We're literally in two completely different situations. Not to mention the majority of the US' immigrants comes from Mexico/South America.

I believe it's ok to set a number for a certain amount that can immigrate each year. But i am completely opposed to anti immigration thinking and immigration itself should not be abolished . I think that immigration laws should reflect how many people immigrate out of the country and what the growth rate of the country is, them you can establish a certain amount that can come in each year. But these laws should only be designed to protect the country from overpopulation, and you can do so without abolishing immigration. So for example if you have a slow growing population then I think a suiting number would be to allowed 1.5 times more people coming in then leaving. That would only increase the growth rate by a little and that's around where immigration into the uk is right now.z

well the UK is overpopulated so there is no reason to have any immigration at all.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

well the UK is overpopulated so there is no reason to have any immigration at all.

Overpopulated by what standards? Some European nations have more than double the population per square mile than the UK.

Just because a place Is overpopulated doesn't mean immigration worsens the problem or is responsible. You have to look at a number of factors, you can't just blame things on immigrants. And even if they were responsible, a more reasonable goal would to be to lower immigration to a more acceptable standard, not to ban it. ImmigrratiOn causes diversity in populations and cultures, it brings new forms of thinking and ways of living life. It allows for people to have better opportunities than they could have ever imagined. Immigration brings a lot of good for everyone yet people blame it for everything. Increased crime? Immigration. Overpopulation? Immigration. Bad economy? ImmigratIon. Yet immigration is rarely the cause of any of these.

ThePreserver: Exactly, so those nations also have no need for immigration.

Atras: Increasing the population will worsen the problem of the population being too high. That's just simple logic. Immigration does increase crime, look up statistics if you don't believe it, immigration does cuase the population to rise (this should be self explanatory) and immigration destorys cultures and leads to racial tensions. If you ever come to the UK you should visit Tower hamlets, Bradford, Luton, places like that, then see how you feel.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

ThePreserver: Exactly, so those nations also have no need for immigration.

Atras: Increasing the population will worsen the problem of the population being too high. That's just simple logic. Immigration does increase crime, look up statistics if you don't believe it, immigration does cuase the population to rise (this should be self explanatory) and immigration destorys cultures and leads to racial tensions. If you ever come to the UK you should visit Tower hamlets, Bradford, Luton, places like that, then see how you feel.

Immigration leads to increased racial tensions because the natives can't coexist. It's not the other way around.

well you can either stop pouring gasoline on the fire or attempt to change the laws of physics so that hydrocarbons and oxygen won't combust. Regardless of who can't exist with who (if the immigrants don't like it then they can leave) the fact of the matter is that immigration causes racial tensions, which itself leads to a whole host of other problems.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

well you can either stop pouring gasoline on the fire or attempt to change the laws of physics so that hydrocarbons and oxygen won't combust. Regardless of who can't exist with who (if the immigrants don't like it then they can leave) the fact of the matter is that immigration causes racial tensions, which itself leads to a whole host of other problems.

Its no different than the holocaust. The germans claimed that jews were the problem, so they went around killing the jews. But the problem wasn't the jews, it was the germans. the fact that people react violently to immigrants doesn't make immigration the problem, it makes those xenophobic people the problem. We should spend our time trying decrease racial tensions, not barring the country off to all other people.

As a Jew (well not religious at all but my mother is so technically I am) I find it extremly offensive that you are comparing the holocaust to opposing immigration, I am shocked at how you can compare the mass murder of 11 million jews, poles, homosexuals, roma and others to maintianing a reasonable political opinion.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

As a Jew (well not religious at all but my mother is so technically I am) I find it extremly offensive that you are comparing the holocaust to opposing immigration, I am shocked at how you can compare the mass murder of 11 million jews, poles, homosexuals, roma and others to maintianing a reasonable political opinion.

I was giving an example of what you said, of how you think that racial tensions is cause to oppose immigration, even if the immigrants weren't the ones being beligerent. I obviously realize that the holocaust is much much worse than racial tension, I was comparing the mindset, not the conflicts. But it is an example of where extreme nationalism can lead to.